DracoWolfgand wrote:There are also the unique mercenaries of the Asian civilizations, that can only be sent after you sent the Atonement card. I kind of like those, particularly the Yojimbo Cavalry Archer, which I hope that you will agree with me when I say that is a far superior replacement for the Yabusame.

The Yojimbo is a somewhat confusing unit to me. It is a ranged cavalry unit with area dmg in melee. The ranged dmg is actually nice, but it further has the unusual rate of fire of 2.0 (instead of 1.5 or 3.0), a comparably low range of 12 and melee (!) resistance of 40%. I really have no idea how to use the Yojimbo.

edit: Well... Given that the Yojimbo is acquirable in age II and japanese can boom quite early, I could see some potential for surprising the opponent with a cuirassier-like unit without a proper counter in age II. But that would still be extremely costly with regard to ressources (400g per unit) and an additional shipment, while severely delaying age ups. You can basically choose between 15 Yojimbos or the direct age-ups to age III + IV.

"To counter the pike-boom, you must become the pike-boom." - Karl V. (HRE)

@duckzilla cav archer, bow rider, black rider, manchu and WW all have melee resistcav archer, bow rider, and manchu also have the same range and similar ROF (2.0 is curious i agree )so in that sense they are similar to other bow-cav unitsThe strong melee attack with area damage is however very unique and I remember getting utterly crushed by Rikki once when I went for a german FI with Uhlan-HC-Skirm and he had 15 Yojimbos

DracoWolfgand wrote:There are also the unique mercenaries of the Asian civilizations, that can only be sent after you sent the Atonement card. I kind of like those, particularly the Yojimbo Cavalry Archer, which I hope that you will agree with me when I say that is a far superior replacement for the Yabusame.

The Yojimbo is a somewhat confusing unit to me. It is a ranged cavalry unit with area dmg in melee. The ranged dmg is actually nice, but it further has the unusual rate of fire of 2.0 (instead of 1.5 or 3.0), a comparably low range of 12 and melee (!) resistance of 40%. I really have no idea how to use the Yojimbo.

edit: Well... Given that the Yojimbo is acquirable in age II and japanese can boom quite early, I could see some potential for surprising the opponent with a cuirassier-like unit without a proper counter in age II. But that would still be extremely costly with regard to ressources (400g per unit) and an additional shipment, while severely delaying age ups. You can basically choose between 15 Yojimbos or the direct age-ups to age III + IV.

Well, the Yojimbo main excentricity is that it is arguably the only light cavalry unit with which it might be a good idea for you to just charge ahead in meele combat. In what circunstances-Should-You do it though, it is up to you to learn. The Yojimbo is utterly devastating against most meele cavalry, regardless of whether you are on ranged mode or meele mode. Against infantry units, though... Well, surprisingly, the meele attack of the Musketeer, for one, actually deals slightly less damage to it then its ranged attack( Having 40% meele resistance is just that helpfull ), what combines with its massive area attack, may make you feel TEMPTED to just charge on in meele combat... But dont forget, it is still a light cavalry unit. And a very expensive one. Triyng to tackle infantry with it should usually only be done if it is cornered, and if you are fighting against meele infantry, you should probably still prefer the good old fashioned hit-and-run tactics.

The only weakness of the Yojimbo Cavalry Archer is that, if you consider the fact it costs twice the population and little over twice the resources as the Dragoon, you will notice its ranged attack is actually quite lackluster. -Plus-It is much less upgradeable then the Dragoon, too. ... On another hand, it still hits like a hammer if compared to the comedically low attack of the Yabusame, so I cant think of many situations where you should be using Yabusame over Yojimbos.

If I calculate correctly, you can max your Yojimbos to have 50 melee damage in age III:35 * (1 + 0.1 (arsenal upgrade) + 0.05 (Isolation)) * 1.15 (Pavillon) * 1.1 (Daimyo) = 50.9dmgSince you would need to get the dutch arsenal and isolation, this of course takes quite a long time. But in general, you could get the Pavillon and Daimyo auras already in age II, yielding a Yojimbo with 44dmg and 540hp. That does not sound so bad.

"To counter the pike-boom, you must become the pike-boom." - Karl V. (HRE)

Howdahs also do splash damage in melee mode and their base damage is higher than a mahout so they actually do decent against ranged infantry in a pinch.

As far as melee infantry goes my best sucess has been with landshnekts. They are more or less equivalent to an imperial fully carded dutch halberdier with more melee resist- and against someone with mediocre micro or to defend artillery they absolutely wreck nearly everything. I have not yet had a chance to try them with germany's speed upgrades, but i think they would be even better than swiss pikes.

dansil92 wrote:As far as melee infantry goes my best sucess has been with landshnekts. They are more or less equivalent to an imperial fully carded dutch halberdier with more melee resist- and against someone with mediocre micro or to defend artillery they absolutely wreck nearly everything. I have not yet had a chance to try them with germany's speed upgrades, but i think they would be even better than swiss pikes.

Good point, they should have a speed of 5.2 given all german upgrades. On the other hand, Ronin could be superior at that point. In low level games, it is quite fun to send the saloon card + adv. mercs as Germans to build some Ronin. They get 69 dmg (area)/700 hp and end up with a speed of 5.85. Quite devastating if you can afford them. With their stats, they can be of partial use until the imperial age, though they cost a lot of pop.

"To counter the pike-boom, you must become the pike-boom." - Karl V. (HRE)

@duckzilla ronin are a favorite as well (i like to keep the card in my dutch decks too so I'm guaranteed something to spend my coin on if my macro is off or my villies get chased off food) but landsknechts are much much cheaper & take less pop- and i would rather have 5 of those than 3 ronin most of the time. That being said those speedy ronin are a nightmare to face and if you have the resources to spend it would be highly entertaining

DracoWolfgand wrote:If you mean building then from the Saloon, I-Might-Build then, if I get a really good one that fills a role my civilization would have trouble filling on its own( Like... Well, if I get the Swiss Pikeman and I am plaiyng as a civilization with relatively weak heavy infantry, like the French, for a example. ) With that said, it is less that I find mercenary units useless, and more that I find then... Boring, really.

There are also the unique mercenaries of the Asian civilizations, that can only be sent after you sent the Atonement card. I kind of like those, particularly the Yojimbo Cavalry Archer, which I hope that you will agree with me when I say that is a far superior replacement for the Yabusame.

France doesn't have bad heavy infantry. They have musketeers, which are which are the best heavy infantry unit in the game (there's a reason that the only civs that make melee inf are the ones without musks). And you shouldn't be making any heavy infantry as age 3 France because they can be kited. Plus dragoons are a far superior anticav unit due to their mobility.

Yojimbo are indeed a cool unit, but are again not practical. You need a card to make them and they are pretty inefficient for their cost (400 gold and 4 pop for a unit that does 35 x 2 damage versus 90f90g/2 pop/26 x 3 for vet dragoons). They also don't do anything that ashis can't do better.

My first post, circa March 2015

Papist wrote:@frycookofdoom. WTF are you talking about? There is no need for AoE to become a StarCraft rip-off. I sincerly doubt a historical game would attract the science fiction crowd anyways.

DracoWolfgand wrote:If you mean building then from the Saloon, I-Might-Build then, if I get a really good one that fills a role my civilization would have trouble filling on its own( Like... Well, if I get the Swiss Pikeman and I am plaiyng as a civilization with relatively weak heavy infantry, like the French, for a example. ) With that said, it is less that I find mercenary units useless, and more that I find then... Boring, really.

There are also the unique mercenaries of the Asian civilizations, that can only be sent after you sent the Atonement card. I kind of like those, particularly the Yojimbo Cavalry Archer, which I hope that you will agree with me when I say that is a far superior replacement for the Yabusame.

France doesn't have bad heavy infantry. They have musketeers, which are which are the best heavy infantry unit in the game (there's a reason that the only civs that make melee inf are the ones without musks). And you shouldn't be making any heavy infantry as age 3 France because they can be kited. Plus dragoons are a far superior anticav unit due to their mobility.

Yojimbo are indeed a cool unit, but are again not practical. You need a card to make them and they are pretty inefficient for their cost (400 gold and 4 pop for a unit that does 35 x 2 damage versus 90f90g/2 pop/26 x 3 for vet dragoons). They also don't do anything that ashis can't do better.

Yes, the French do get Musketeers! ... So do about half of the civilizations on this damn game! The question is: How do their Musketeers fare, compared to other civilizations Musketeers?

Comparing heavy infantry with light cavalry is in and by itself a bad comparisson to make. The only similarity between the Dragoon and the Musketeer is that they both happen to counter meele cavalry. Other then that, their roles are completely different. Dragoons are raiders, harassers, and general annoyers: You use then for their ability to attack a opponent, run away, and shoot down the very few units that are even close from being fast enough to chase then anyway. However, Dragoons are absolutely awfull in any situation where they cant afford to use their mobility-Say, if they are suppose to be defending a location for a example. Musketeers, on another hand, are, well, their primary use is being meatshields: A line of then standing in front of your light infantry or of your artillery is helpfull to protect then from those pesky Hussars. You wouldnt have a line of Dragoons standing in the front of your Heavy Cannons, where they can proceed to get shot down quickly and, if they run away, they will be leaving these precious Cannons behind, would you?

DracoWolfgand wrote:Yes, the French do get Musketeers! ... So do about half of the civilizations on this damn game! The question is: How do their Musketeers fare, compared to other civilizations Musketeers?

Comparing heavy infantry with light cavalry is in and by itself a bad comparisson to make. The only similarity between the Dragoon and the Musketeer is that they both happen to counter meele cavalry. Other then that, their roles are completely different. Dragoons are raiders, harassers, and general annoyers: You use then for their ability to attack a opponent, run away, and shoot down the very few units that are even close from being fast enough to chase then anyway. However, Dragoons are absolutely awfull in any situation where they cant afford to use their mobility-Say, if they are suppose to be defending a location for a example. Musketeers, on another hand, are, well, their primary use is being meatshields: A line of then standing in front of your light infantry or of your artillery is helpfull to protect then from those pesky Hussars. You wouldnt have a line of Dragoons standing in the front of your Heavy Cannons, where they can proceed to get shot down quickly and, if they run away, they will be leaving these precious Cannons behind, would you?

I see no problem with comparing dragoons to musketeers considering they have the same function, which is countering hand cav. And they do a much better job of it, which is why you will almost never see a high-level player making musks in age 3 if goons are available. Dragoons are actually better at protecting cannons than musks because their multiplier is done at range, not in hand combat. They also have ranged resist instead of melee resist, making them less vulnerable to skirms.

My first post, circa March 2015

Papist wrote:@frycookofdoom. WTF are you talking about? There is no need for AoE to become a StarCraft rip-off. I sincerly doubt a historical game would attract the science fiction crowd anyways.

DracoWolfgand wrote:Yes, the French do get Musketeers! ... So do about half of the civilizations on this damn game! The question is: How do their Musketeers fare, compared to other civilizations Musketeers?

Comparing heavy infantry with light cavalry is in and by itself a bad comparisson to make. The only similarity between the Dragoon and the Musketeer is that they both happen to counter meele cavalry. Other then that, their roles are completely different. Dragoons are raiders, harassers, and general annoyers: You use then for their ability to attack a opponent, run away, and shoot down the very few units that are even close from being fast enough to chase then anyway. However, Dragoons are absolutely awfull in any situation where they cant afford to use their mobility-Say, if they are suppose to be defending a location for a example. Musketeers, on another hand, are, well, their primary use is being meatshields: A line of then standing in front of your light infantry or of your artillery is helpfull to protect then from those pesky Hussars. You wouldnt have a line of Dragoons standing in the front of your Heavy Cannons, where they can proceed to get shot down quickly and, if they run away, they will be leaving these precious Cannons behind, would you?

I see no problem with comparing dragoons to musketeers considering they have the same function, which is countering hand cav. And they do a much better job of it, which is why you will almost never see a high-level player making musks in age 3 if goons are available. Dragoons are actually better at protecting cannons than musks because their multiplier is done at range, not in hand combat. They also have ranged resist instead of melee resist, making them less vulnerable to skirms.

I am not fully sure of why does it matters here if the multiplier is at range or at meele? I mean, most artillery units have such high ranged resistance anyway that, even though light cavalry is-SUPPOSE-To be a counter to it, almost everyone will use meele cavalry over ranged cavalry against then 99% of the time anyway. That is one of the reasons why Yabusame suck( The other reason being... You know, its laughably low attack.

Dragoons have only about 33% more hitpoints then Musketeeers... While costing twice as much. I would say that the hitpoints-to-cost ratio here more then makes up for the Musketeers lack of ranged resistance. Besides, the Musketeer has a higher base ranged attack, and against meele cavalry( You know, the unit against which the multipliers actually matter ), once they get to meele range, musketeers deal almost as much damage with their meele attack as Dragoons do with their ranged attack... And again: While costing half as much. As far as meele combat goes, Musketeers are just better: As far as ranged combat goes, against anything that isnt cavalry, Musketeers are still better. Dragoons are only better then Musketeers when they are using their hit-and-run antics: The rest of the time, Musketeers are most cost effective.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, with that said, this talk just reminded me about one context on which Yojimbo Cavalry Archers are indeed better then Ashigaru Musketeers: Supporting Naginata Riders. Naginata Riders are somewhat poor against other cavalry, and, well... Yojimbos are just more mobile, and plus, have their multipliers apply at range.

Gendarme wrote:30% ranged resistance is equivalent to 43% more ranged HP, and they have 33% more HP than musketeers already, so that adds up to 90% more ranged HP, while costing 80% more than musketeers (although food gathers quicker than coin). Musketeers have a higher base attack yes, so their ranged attack is better against everything that is not hand cavalry—which is a large part of why musketeers and dragoons are not really similar units. Musketeers die extremely easily to skirmishers, because they are not positioned behind your army like dragoons are. You will be surprised to see how quick musketeers drop dead against an opponent who knows how to micro his skirmishers well.

Edit: Oh and also, dragoons have many homecity upgrades, and you do not have to spend time and resources to upgrade them to veteran dragoons.

Goons are very strong until population cap starts to become an issue of course- for example for Britain which has 3 upgrade cards for goons and musketeers is still going to inevitably fall back to musketeer- rocket composition late game because 3 rockets & 41 goons just doesn't do as well as 3 rockets 83 redcoats in terms of hp, body blocking, dps, etc. The ranged resist of dragoons is a nice perk of course and should not be ignored.Dutch doesn't really ever encounter this problem or dilemma because apart from stadhouders they dont get musketeers but also have Ruyters which only take 1 pop and have only 10% range resist meaning it doesn't really matter if they are body blocking or tanking ranged fire. In a team game that went late late game i ended up having like 10 imperial horse artillery and like 80 ruyters and it kinda just beats nearly everything.Any civ with cav archers is usually happy to make musketeers as a general rule as well.

Gendarme wrote:30% ranged resistance is equivalent to 43% more ranged HP, and they have 33% more HP than musketeers already, so that adds up to 90% more ranged HP, while costing 80% more than musketeers (although food gathers quicker than coin). Musketeers have a higher base attack yes, so their ranged attack is better against everything that is not hand cavalry—which is a large part of why musketeers and dragoons are not really similar units. Musketeers die extremely easily to skirmishers, because they are not positioned behind your army like dragoons are. You will be surprised to see how quick musketeers drop dead against an opponent who knows how to micro his skirmishers well.

Edit: Oh and also, dragoons have many homecity upgrades, and you do not have to spend time and resources to upgrade them to veteran dragoons.

... Yes. You put your dragoons. Behind the rest of your troops. Because, if you were putting then on the-Front-Of the rest of your troops, they would die too quickly. That is the point I was making. Musketeers are good meatshields. Dragoons are not good meatshields.

Gendarme wrote:30% ranged resistance is equivalent to 43% more ranged HP, and they have 33% more HP than musketeers already, so that adds up to 90% more ranged HP, while costing 80% more than musketeers (although food gathers quicker than coin). Musketeers have a higher base attack yes, so their ranged attack is better against everything that is not hand cavalry—which is a large part of why musketeers and dragoons are not really similar units. Musketeers die extremely easily to skirmishers, because they are not positioned behind your army like dragoons are. You will be surprised to see how quick musketeers drop dead against an opponent who knows how to micro his skirmishers well.

Edit: Oh and also, dragoons have many homecity upgrades, and you do not have to spend time and resources to upgrade them to veteran dragoons.

... Yes. You put your dragoons. Behind the rest of your troops. Because, if you were putting then on the-Front-Of the rest of your troops, they would die too quickly. That is the point I was making. Musketeers are good meatshields. Dragoons are not good meatshields.

Has anyone told you yet, that you can use the search function of the forums to find every single answer you are looking for? Or... use it to get some gist about what type of players are you trying to teach basics of aoe when they kindly respond to you?

Gendarme wrote:30% ranged resistance is equivalent to 43% more ranged HP, and they have 33% more HP than musketeers already, so that adds up to 90% more ranged HP, while costing 80% more than musketeers (although food gathers quicker than coin). Musketeers have a higher base attack yes, so their ranged attack is better against everything that is not hand cavalry—which is a large part of why musketeers and dragoons are not really similar units. Musketeers die extremely easily to skirmishers, because they are not positioned behind your army like dragoons are. You will be surprised to see how quick musketeers drop dead against an opponent who knows how to micro his skirmishers well.

Edit: Oh and also, dragoons have many homecity upgrades, and you do not have to spend time and resources to upgrade them to veteran dragoons.

... Yes. You put your dragoons. Behind the rest of your troops. Because, if you were putting then on the-Front-Of the rest of your troops, they would die too quickly. That is the point I was making. Musketeers are good meatshields. Dragoons are not good meatshields.

Has anyone told you yet, that you can use the search function of the forums to find every single answer you are looking for? Or... use it to get some gist about what type of players are you trying to teach basics of aoe when they kindly respond to you?

Just a general observation.

I think one of us must have completely misunderstood some part of what the other said. The point that I was triyng to make, on the discussion, was that Musketeers and Dragoons fullfill very different roles: As such, saiyng that you shouldnt use one because the other is "so much better" would be a moot point.

I was under the impression Papist and Gendarme disagreed with me on this point? Or is there something I misunderstood?

DracoWolfgand wrote:I am not fully sure of why does it matters here if the multiplier is at range or at meele? I mean, most artillery units have such high ranged resistance anyway that, even though light cavalry is-SUPPOSE-To be a counter to it, almost everyone will use meele cavalry over ranged cavalry against then 99% of the time anyway. That is one of the reasons why Yabusame suck( The other reason being... You know, its laughably low attack.

Dragoons have only about 33% more hitpoints then Musketeeers... While costing twice as much. I would say that the hitpoints-to-cost ratio here more then makes up for the Musketeers lack of ranged resistance. Besides, the Musketeer has a higher base ranged attack, and against meele cavalry( You know, the unit against which the multipliers actually matter ), once they get to meele range, musketeers deal almost as much damage with their meele attack as Dragoons do with their ranged attack... And again: While costing half as much. As far as meele combat goes, Musketeers are just better: As far as ranged combat goes, against anything that isnt cavalry, Musketeers are still better. Dragoons are only better then Musketeers when they are using their hit-and-run antics: The rest of the time, Musketeers are most cost effective.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, with that said, this talk just reminded me about one context on which Yojimbo Cavalry Archers are indeed better then Ashigaru Musketeers: Supporting Naginata Riders. Naginata Riders are somewhat poor against other cavalry, and, well... Yojimbos are just more mobile, and plus, have their multipliers apply at range.

I was referring to dragoons' multiplier versus cav, not artillery. But their multiplier against artillery is indeed another reason they are better in age 3

You claimed that musketeers do almost as much damage to cav in melee as dragoons do at range. This is incorrect. Dragoons do 26x3 whereas veteran musketeers do 16x3 in melee. While the fact that hand cav have ranged resistance narrows the gap a bit, it does not come close to eliminating it. Now consider that musks only get their multiplier in melee and that dragoons get it all the time, and it's abundantly clear why dragoons are the superior anticav unit.

Also, Yojimbos still suck. Their utility in a hypothetical fight is irrelevant -- their stats are bad per cost, they are prohibitively expensive, and they require a card to train (and even then they can only be trained from one building, which is going to create problems later in the game when you need to pump out units quickly). And between their base speed (which is higher than a normal musk) and the focus at the Golden Pavilion wonder that makes your troops move faster, ashis do just fine supporting cavalry. Not to mention that they have two upgrade cards and Yojimbos don't.

My first post, circa March 2015

Papist wrote:@frycookofdoom. WTF are you talking about? There is no need for AoE to become a StarCraft rip-off. I sincerly doubt a historical game would attract the science fiction crowd anyways.